FDA proposes first e-cigarette rules, including banning sales to minors

FOX News ^ | April 24, 2014 | Associated Press

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

WASHINGTON – The federal government wants to ban sales of electronic cigarettes to minors and require approval for new products and health warning labels under regulations being proposed by the Food and Drug Administration.

While the proposal being issued Thursday won't immediately mean changes for the popular devices, the move is aimed at eventually taming the fast-growing e-cigarette industry.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Nanny State PING!

[rktman]

Yup. Crack down on evil tobacco and those evil E-Cigs and loosen the reigns on wonderful pot. So, in 40 years or so, will “they” discover “they” made a huge mistake? Will pot companies be forced to stop advertising and marketing and have to pay for their “awful lies”?

Gonna go fire up a Marlboro now. While it’s still legal.

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

...including banning sales to minors.

Why?

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

You think that’s bad, when I use to live in the totalitarian state of New York city, Despot Mike Bloomberg demanded a list from all landlords of the tenants who smoke in their apartments.

[GeronL]

keeping drugs from kids?

such an outrage

/sarc

[Obadiah]

When does the FDA begin regulating Marijuana?

[Beagle8U]

This is only one small part of what Owebama’s plans were, the big item he announced was putting the full tobacco tax on pipe tobacco and cigars!

That roll your own ‘pipe tobacco’ is going to be taxed at the same rate as cigarette tobacco!

[rktman]

Hey! It was for your own good. He don’t care if you like it or not. :>}

[dila813]

The cool thing about these devices is you can make your own e-cig fluid at home. The ingredients are common to food production and insecticide.

[DannyTN]

Doesn't sound all that draconian to me....

• prohibiting sales to minors
• requiring health labels that warn users that nicotine is an addictive chemical,
• register their products with the agency
• disclose ingredients.
• would not be allowed to claim their products are safer than other tobacco products.
• They also couldn't use words such as "light" or "mild" to describe their products,
• couldn't give out free samples or sell their products in vending machines unless they are in a place open only to adults, such as a bar.
• Companies also will be required to submit applications for premarket review within two years.
• The FDA said it will allow the products to stay on the market while they are being reviewed.

[JRandomFreeper]

I grow my own tobacco in the garden. No taxes or noxious chemicals on that.

/johnny

[JRandomFreeper]

Except that congress has no constitutional authority to regulate food or drugs. That's the draconian part, an out-of-control government.

/johnny

[Amendment10]

The federal government wants to ban sales of electronic cigarettes to minors ...

Regardless what Constitution-ignoring socialist FDR's activist justices wanted everybody to think about the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers, and with the exception of federal entities under the exclusive legislative control of Congress evidenced by the Constitution's Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I, the states have never delegated to the feds, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate commerce. This is evidenced by the following excerpt.

”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. (emphases added)” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

So the idea of the federal government wanting to ban sales of electronic cigarettes to minors, while arguably a good thing, is nontheless outside the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers imo. The states need to legislate such bans under their 10th Amendment-protected powers until they choose to amend the Constitution with such a prohibition.

[JRandomFreeper]

AMEN!

Unfortunately, many freepers don't care about constitutionality, if their ox isn't gored.

/johnny

[mmichaels1970]

keeping drugs from kids?

such an outrage

Which is why the Constitution grants authority to the States to pass or not pass laws related to it. "For the children" is an all too familiar mantra used to rally support behind the feds stretching authority beyond their constitutional limit.

Just because we may like the intent of a law doesn't mean we can overlook its constitutionality.

[DannyTN]

For over 100 years SCOTUS has held that they do have that authority.

[mmichaels1970]

So the idea of the federal government wanting to ban sales of electronic cigarettes to minors, while arguably a good thing, is nontheless outside the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers imo.

And so long as the majority (or at least majority party) consider it a "good thing" they are willing to overlook the Constitution. It's so sad.

Not only is it sad that the public supports it, but it's even more disheartening that we have a judicial branch that's also willing to support and facilitate it time and time again.

[Army Air Corps]

How do you dry and cure your leaves?

[JRandomFreeper]

Just because evil has gone on for a long time doesn't make it right.

Much of the progressive slide into the pit began about 100 years ago with unconstitutional rulings by the Supreme Court.

It will take vocal fighters to reverse that progressive crap.

/johnny